Part 1 of my reply:
I wrote:
> I am well aware that this may be the case. But let me tell you
> why I don't think so. Two questions, when coupled, strongly
> support my contention (IMO). First, when you ask a scientist
> what type of data would cause him/her to suspect ID behind the
> origin of some biological feature, you usually get no answer.
> But in all fairness, this is because most scientists don't even
> think much about origins and the issue of origins is largely
> irrelevant to their science. However, if pressed, those who do
> have an interest in origins will answer this question by citing
> things that really are far closer to some needed proof for design
> than something that merely raises a suspicion.
Tedd replied:
>1. independent evidence of ID capable of genetic engineering
>2. anything that casts doubt on RM & NS capability of doing the
> job
>These are things that would cause me to suspect design. Now
>you might characterize these things as far closer to proof
>than suspicion but I wouldn't; RM & NS is such a powerful and
>persuasive explanation to begin with, it requires powerful and
>persuasive explanations to overturn it.
Interesting. But I am not sure why 1&2 would cause you to suspect
ID behind the origin of some biological feature as you also claim
below, " life does not look like the product of an ID like human
beings." Having independent evidence of an intelligent agent (a
potential designer) would seem insufficient for such a suspicion
unless you had reason to think such agent might have been a designer.
Yet your perceptions of life processes seem to preclude such a
suspicion. As for #2, why would problems with RM&NS lead
you to suspect ID? Wouldn't you simply attribute such origin
events to the "unknown" class? In other words, I don't see how
you get a real suspicion of ID from 1&2.
In my opinion, the question revolves around how we perceive
life. I don't agree with you that life does not look like the product
of an intelligent mind. Thus, for me, if 1&2 were satisfied, I think
we would have a much stronger basis for more than a mere suspicion.
We'd have our watch, watchmakers, and reason to think non-watchmakers
couldn't make the watch. But if we take away the appearance of design
from life, then 1&2 alone don't seem capable of generating a justified
suspicion (IMO). So, from where I sit, I'm still left without an answer.
But let me consider your criteria in more detail. Having independent
evidence of beings capable of designing an ancient biotic feature would
surely be nice. But as I have argued earlier, the existence of
such independent evidence is not entailed by the truth of such a design
event. If life on this planet did originate about 4 billion years ago as
the result the engineering from some intelligent beings (obviously not
endogenous to this planet), I just can't find one good reason for thinking
that today we would have independent evidence of their existence. Thus,
it makes little sense to me to tie this type of evidence to a ID
suspicion-trigger.
Number 2 is more interesting. First, I note that what you need is some
evidence that RM&NS are "incapable" of evolving something. But
as long as we are talking about ancient events with very little data,
one cannot reasonably hope to make such a demonstration even if
it is true. When the proponent of RM&NS is free to imagine whatever
function he/she wants in whatever imaginary creature he/she wants in
whatever imaginary ancient environment he/she wants, RM&NS simply
become much too plastic to be held to some test of incapability.
As I have been saying many times, for me this is an inquiry about
history and not philosophy. That it might seem reasonable to believe
that RM&NS were up to the task of putting together the eukaryotic
cytoskeleton (for example) is not relevant to me. The question is
whether there is any evidence that it did do such things. You ask
for reasons to doubt, but when one does not have reason to believe,
the need for reasons to doubt drop away. Why should I assume that
RM&NS put together the ribosome because RM&NS can tweak it?
What is not inherent in an ID perspective is the belief that RM&NS
cannot tweak something. For me, it's not so much a matter of doubting
your belief in the capability of RM&NS; it's that I have no evidence
to believe as you do (consider me agnostic).
But what of this doubt? What type of data would cause you to have
this doubt? What could we find about some biological feature that
would cause you to doubt RM&NS were incapable of producing it?
Do you need something close to a proof of incapability to yield such
doubt?
Me:
> Okay, so maybe these people are just hard-core skeptics. But
> then comes the second question. Most of these same "skeptics"
> also believe that RM&NS were indeed the main mechanisms behind
> the origin of every biological feature. Yet when I ask for the
> evidence behind this belief, I get none.
Tedd:
>But what evidence would you accept? For example, if I demanded
>evidence that Pluto orbited the sun, how would you supply it?
>Or evidence that the Grand Canyon was caused by natural
>forces? What is the best way to provide evidence for any process
>that is incapable of being observed in its entirety?
Good questions. At some point, I'll address them directly. But for
now, I'm more interested in the evidence the believers of RM&NS
(as the primary mechanisms of evolution) cite as the basis for their
belief. I'm interested in the evidential basis for this consensus belief
and am finding very little (if any). I am reacting to the status quo.
>The best evidence for RM & NS is probably not much better than
>what we have today --assuming we can't travel back in time.
>That's the nature of processes working slowly over eons of time.
It's not a question of evidence for RM&NS as I fully acknowledge
their existence. I'm interested in why it is that people believe these
were indeed the mechanisms behind the origin of every biological
feature seen today. Take your "eons of time" claim. Is there evidence
that things like the cytoskeleton, nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, etc.
actually came into being during "eons of time?" No. Also keep in
mind that because mutations are random, they can also be guided
through intelligent intervention. I understand the philosophical
basis for assuming all mutations prior to human existence and
technology have been random and void of intelligent intervention,
but this is only an assumption about the fabric of reality
as far as I can tell.
Me:
> What happened to that hard-core skepticism? So on one hand, we
> have a community that doesn't seem to know how to process a
> question about data that would raise a suspicion of design, yet
> on the other hand, the same community widely accepts and promotes
> a belief for which there seems to be very little evidence. This
> apparent double standard is best explained, in my opinion, by
> realizing just how much the "metaphysics and game rules" drive
> this question for many. After all, many leading scientists have
> written that they *begin* their analysis by excluding teleological
> explanations; this act has been defined as being an essential
> ingredient of science.
Tedd:
>This can't be true. How would scientists detect human artifacts
>then? You sure they aren't simply excluding a god with
>omni-characteristics?
But we are not talking about human history and archaeology. We're
talking about the origin of life and natural history prior to the
existence of humans. And when dealing with these questions,
teleological explanations are indeed excluded as part of the game
rules. Sorry, it is true.
Me:
> When this happens, why bother training your mind so that it can
> detect traces of ID (since it's a taboo explanation)? And of
> course trivial observed examples of RM&NS become inflated to
> explain everything, as there is no solid alternative. From this
> perspective, one doesn't need evidence that RM&NS evolved some
> feature because the mere existence of RM&NS is sufficient.
Tedd:
>Sufficient, at least, without an alternate explanation.
Indeed. But since I do not approach this topic with the
expectation that the truth of ID will show itself as independent
evidence of the designers and some proof that RM&NS are
incapable to generating X, I do have an alternative
explanation and thus find the mere existence of RM&NS
to be completely insufficient.
>It's just like suggesting that erosion can explain the Grand Canyon.
>We know that erosion works on our small observable scale so we
>assume in can also do a much larger job over a much larger
>interval of time. However, that explanation would quickly fall
>out of favor if good evidence for a different mechanism were
>found, or if evidence for aliens who had good reason to do such
>things was discovered.
Do you have any evidence that the assumption about geological
processes validly applies to biological organisms? That I can
observe rust forming on my car is reason to think the same process,
over long time, would form a car?
Look at it this way. Many species of bacterial that act as pathogens
have been under very strong selective pressure with the use of
antibiotics over the last few decades. If we compare these bacteria
to bacteria that do not cause disease (and thus have not been under
the same selective pressure), is there anything about them that
indicates RM&NS would be up to the task of forming a major
evolutionary innovation?
If you ask me, the vast majority of data in support of adaptive
mutations can be interpreted to show that RM&NS serve to
preserve, not transform, higher levels of structure/function.
Me:
> I meant the former. If it were the latter, then other branches
> of science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc.) would
> be as dependent on teleological language and concepts as is
> biology. But they are not. Since I addressed this issue on
> this list a few months back, I'll simply re-post some excerpts:
Tedd:
>Before we get started, I'd like to observe that much of this
>argument below assumes that we understand exactly what it means
>to be intelligent, what it means to show purpose, what "life"
>means, what order and disorder mean and other things that, to
>my mind, are not really precisely defined or understood. If ID
>is to depend on these concepts, it will suffer from the same
>problems and never hope to make progress. One big head-start
>evolution has on ID is that it doesn't have to depend on vague terms.
First of all, the vagueness of the terms is in the eye of the beholder.
What matters to be is not whether I can define reality with words such
that we can agree, but whether I can define reality with words in
order to generate testable hypotheses that further our understanding
of the world. And as far as the latter threshold is concerned, the
answer seems to be clearly yes. As for vague terms and evolution,
I'm afraid evolution has its own share. What is a species? It is
normally defined as a population of interbreeding organisms, but
how does this definition help us with the vast majority of organisms
that do not use sex? And what of those recent mitochondrial studies
suggesting neanderthals and humans interbred? Recall that I mentioned
this would mean, by our precise evolutionary definitions, that
neanderthals and humans are the same species. And there is the
term niche. You don't think this is vague? And what about that
term "life?" Researchers into abiogenesis would likewise seem
to require a precise definition, right? So which one do they use?
I'm sorry, but given that biology has long used terms that are
not precisely defined and understood to guide its approach, I fail
to see why ID must shoulder the burden of a double standard.
Me:
> " But I think it most telling that, while it officially excludes
> intelligent design, biology works because it extensively employs
> intelligent design language and concepts. As a physical scientist,
> Paul Davies, wisely observed in his latest book:
> " Concepts like information and software do not come from the
> natural sciences at all, but from communication theory, and
> involve qualifiers like context and mode of description - notions
> that are quite alien to the physicist's description of the world.
> Yet most scientists accept that information concepts do legitimately
> apply to biological systems, and they cheerfully treat semantic
> information as if it were a natural quantity like energy.
> Unfortunately, "meaning" sounds perilously close to purpose, an
> utterly taboo subject in biology. So we are left with the
> contradiction that we need to apply concepts derived from
> purposeful human activities (communication, meaning, context,
> semantics) to biological processes that certainly appear
> purposeful, but are in fact not (or are not supposed to be)."
Tedd replies:
>This sounds a bit confused to me. What is "purpose" really? If
>you define it in terms of intelligence, then of course you're
>begging the question by applying it to biology, but if not, how
>do you define it?
Davies is not talking about "purpose," only that we need to apply
concepts that stem from purposeful human activities to
understand biology. As a physical scientist used to employing
physical laws to understand reality, Davies finds the world of the
(molecular) biologist to be a strange place.
>Purpose seems to me to mean "directed towards
>some goal" and that is quite consistent with anything that
>follows the laws of physics; rivers strive towards the
>goal of finding the most direct path to the lowest ground;
>molecules of water seek precise relative positions when
> the temperature drops below its freezing point; mountains
>erode; planets travel in unerring arcs; life seeks to
>live; etc.
Aside from the "life seeks to live" claim (which seems nothing
more than a trivial tautology). the other claims all boil down
to expressions of some rather simple laws of physics. If we were
to extrapolate the dynamics behind all these natural events, the
"goal" of life would be to die. Yet life escapes death because
it employs machinery that stem from encoded information to
maintain webs of energy and material flow (ie, communication)
that are not seen in rivers, plant orbits, and freezing water. In
other words, to understand why life is not non-life, we need to
think in engineering/design terms.
Me:
> The fact that biology invokes intelligent design concepts like
> proofreading and quality control in order to make sense of life
> is, to me, very suggestive.
Tedd:
>But how can you say that proofreading and quality control are
>solely features of intelligent design without begging the
>question?
If we remove life from the picture (the thing in question), where
else do we find concepts such as proof-reading, checkpoints,
and quality control to be seriously employed to guide understanding?
I don't claim to know they are "solely" features of ID, but they are
clearly to be expected from engineering (ID). Thus, it would seem
to me there is a very strong correlation between such concepts
and ID. In contrast, life-independent, non-living reality
does not seem to employ such phenomena.
>There is something about proofreading and quality control that
>implies intelligence but it seems to be similarity and complexity,
>both fraught with problems for inferring good conclusions about
>nature.
You forgot specificity.
>Similarity, on the one hand, leads us correctly to
>human artifacts, but also misleads us.
So? I am not interested in the Infallible Design Inference
that is incapable of making a mistake. Thus, the question is
not whether it can mislead us, but whether there is good
reason to think we are being misled in any particular case
under examination.
>At many times (in the
>past, anyway) humans positted a malicious or benevolent
>weather/earthquake/disease/goodfortune-controller -- a god
>behind nature driven by the human emotions malice and benevolence,
>directing the fate of every individual through blessings of rain
>and mild winters, or catastrophes of flood, fire or famine.
>The flawed assumption is that if nature displays behavior
>consistent with emotions, then nature (or something behind
>nature) possesses those emotions. With knowledge comes a
>rejection of this anthropomorphic tendency. Likewise, observing
>that nature contains certain things consistent with human
>intelligence may or may not indicate that nature (or something
>behind nature) is intelligent.
Did you forget that I was talking about the need for such
ID concepts as the basis for a *suspicion*? That data used
to generate a hunch may or may not mean the hunch is correct
is hardly surprising. But there is an important difference here.
If one were to take the emotional interpretation of weather
literally, it would not only be useless to scientific inquiry, but
it would likely lead one astray. But if we took the design
terminology in biology literally, it would still generate
good scientific research and there is no reason to think it
would cause us to run astray.
>*Degree* of similarity, then, becomes the most important factor
>and not just similarity itself.
I agree with you and this is the reason why I so much suspect
ID behind life, namely, that the last few decades of molecular
research supports the view that life displays more similarity to
things known to be designed that it does to non-living, life-independent
phenomena.
>Complexity -- without a careful definition -- can be ruled out
>already as a reliable intelligence indicator, given that there
>are almost arbitrarily complex non-designed systems, from
>weather systems to sub-atomic particles.
I agree that complexity, by itself, means nothing. The thing
that is interesting is specified complexity.
>Let's also not forget to look at the other side of the
>coin. If similarity and complexity suggests intelligence,
>then the sheer coldness and lack of any moral decency whatsoever
>in nature suggests the absence of intelligence (if we associate
>higher intelligence with higher morality). Frankly, I can't
>conceive of an intelligence so great that it could manipulate
>genes but so morally-flawed that it would permit the unimaginable
>scale of pain and suffering in life's history. We must suppose
>an intelligence that is far more frightening then no intelligence
>at all; an intelligence that would permit any intelligent race
>to be wiped out to see what organism might next fill its niche.
>Perhaps it is far more comforting to imagine that nature alone
>gave rise to life than to imagine an advanced intelligence
>without a trace of human decency!
I suppose. Yet this view assumes that the only proper expression
of ID is one in which an higher intelligence has the ability to
control life's history. If life itself is simply the product of design
by beings no more omnipotent than we are (or will ever be),
I fail to see how the cold cruel history to follow counts against
such intelligent intervention.
However, what you say is very interesting. ID proponents are
often accused of rejecting the darwinian paradigm because it
is something they cannot emotionally and/or psychologically
process. But what you have shown is that argument actually
cuts both ways. After all, it is not uncommon for ID critics
to appeal to some form of the Argument from Evil sooner or
later.
Yet I should also point out that I don't think even an omnipotent
designer need be considered morally flawed for permitting the
unimaginable scale of pain and suffering in life's history. The
argument from evil may be a serious problem for many types
of theism, but I think Christian theology is more than big enough
to handle it. And since this is a Christian board, I suppose we
could explore this.
Me:
> Of course, this is not the type of thing that is likely to
> trigger the suspicions of a naturalist, as his/her trigger is
> set to detect only things that essentially amount to the designer
> him/herself paying a visit to that naturalist.
Tedd:
>No, see 1 and 2 above.
I've already addressed this. Like I said, I fail to see how these
would trigger a suspicion. The mere existence of a potential
intelligent designer and doubts about the capabilities of RM&NS
seem insufficient unless we add the proposition that life looks
designed. But if we add that proposition, it looks like more than
a mere suspicion is involved.
Anyway, what type of data would you consider independent evidence
of an intelligent designer and what type of data would cause you
to doubt the capabilities of RM&NS?
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 17 2000 - 18:40:36 EDT